Since the 1980s, several U.S. states have embraced an unusual method of dealing with juvenile criminals. In those states, offenders under the age of 18 can be sentenced to serve time in special “boot camps” instead of traditional detention facilities. However, those camps have become highly controversial; while some observers praise them for instilling good habits in young people, others allege that they are overly harsh and ineffective at reducing crime.
Young offenders sentenced to boot camp in Broward County, Fla., march while carrying their mattresses in July 2000.
The precise setup of such boot camps varies, but most are patterned on military training facilities. Staff members often take on the role of drill sergeants. They put young inmates, called “recruits,” through military-style workouts such as running obstacle courses and marching long distances, which is intended to teach juvenile offenders discipline and, ideally, curb their criminal tendencies. Some boot camps have a broader scope, offering classes on various subjects and recovery programs for substance abusers.
During the 1990s, correctional boot camps for juveniles flourished in the U.S. Canada eventually joined the trend, establishing its own boot camps for young offenders. However, many European governments were reluctant to adopt the boot camp system, regarding it as basically a North American phenomenon.
In recent years, the popularity of boot camps has suffered in the U.S. because of a series of scandals. According to numerous media and eyewitness reports, staff members at some camps have subjected young inmates to physical and psychological abuse. In the most extreme cases, some camp recruits have actually died from alleged maltreatment.
As a result of those scandals, some states have either reformed their boot camp systems or abandoned them altogether. Privately run camps continue to operate in many areas, but they are facing increasing scrutiny and legal restrictions. While advocates still maintain that most boot camps help juvenile offenders, critics insist that the camps are too dangerous.
Critics of boot camps for juveniles say that the camps are often violent, poorly regulated places where staff members are free to inflict physical and psychological abuse on young people. There is no evidence that such harsh treatment curbs criminal behavior, critics argue; in fact, they say, statistics indicate that the majority of boot camp inmates return to crime after their release. Also, some camp inmates have actually died under harsh abuse, and opponents say that those needless deaths far eclipse the limited benefits derived from the camps.
Meanwhile, supporters of boot camps for juveniles contend that the camps are a more humane, more redeeming environment than prison. Boot camps enable many young offenders to overcome emotional problems and addictions, they maintain; furthermore, camps often impart valuable vocational skills enabling inmates to obtain good jobs once they are released. Incidents of violence in boot camps are deplorable, supporters admit, but they argue that most camps ultimately have a positive effect on society.
Evolution of the Boot Camp System
Boot camp inmates typically serve sentences of between 90 and 180 days. They are often repeat offenders who have already undergone less extreme forms of punishment, such as probation. Camp inmates have usually been convicted of nonviolent crimes, such as shoplifting, although some camps do accept violent inmates. In general, boot camp programs are directed toward offenders who are in their mid-to-late teens. One major goal of the camp system is to prevent young offenders from becoming career criminals.
According to the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the rise of boot camps coincided with a sharp increase in national levels of youth crime. Between 1978 and 1989, the number of juvenile offenders in custody jumped 35%, and some states embraced boot camps as a means of coping with that surge
Louisiana opened the country’s first boot camp for juvenile offenders in 1985. (An adult correctional boot camp had been established two years earlier in Georgia.) Initially, other states were slow to follow suit. But, in 1994, Congress passed a $30 billion crime bill that included $8 billion in funding for prisons and boot camps. That influx of money encouraged rapid growth within the boot camp system.
By 1996, 27 U.S. states were operating 48 residential boot camps for juvenile offenders. Privately owned camps flourished as well. The camps won favor from many government officials because they were cheaper to operate than prisons, and they encouraged behavioral reform. In some cases, parents voluntarily sent their troubled children to boot camps, often paying thousands of dollars to do so.
Correctional boot camps arguably reached the peak of their popularity and public acceptance during the mid-1990s. However, their reputation suffered as reports spread that young inmates in some camps were being maltreated, in a few cases even resulting in death. Those reports triggered widespread anger and raised serious questions about the viability of the camp system.
One of the toughest blows to the system came in 1998, when the Justice Department released a highly critical report on three Georgia boot camps. The report found evidence that camp staff members had physically abused young inmates, sometimes by placing them in chokeholds or throwing them into walls. The report also found that staff members often neglected to provide proper care for disabled and emotionally disturbed inmates. In response to those damaging revelations, Georgia began dismantling its camp system in 1999.
Also in 1999, the Baltimore Sun revealed that inmates of Maryland boot camps were being routinely subjected to threats and violence. Some of the abuse was witnessed first-hand by members of the Sun staff. Maryland reacted by suspending its camp system and paying reparations to inmates who had suffered abuse.
Amid the controversy, many other states began to shut down their boot camps. According to the Justice Department, by 2002, nearly one-third of state boot camps had been closed down.
More recently, in January 2006, teenager Martin Lee Anderson died a day after being beaten by staff members and forced to inhale ammonia at a state-run boot camp in Florida. The Florida legislature responded by replacing the state’s boot camp system with a new, reportedly less severe program for dealing with juvenile offenders. The legislature also voted to award a $5 million settlement to Anderson’s family.
Anderson’s death renewed debate about the merits of correctional boot camps for juveniles. Critics have intensified their calls to have the camps shut down or placed under stricter government regulation. Meanwhile, boot camp advocates–including some former inmates–maintain that most camps are helpful to troubled youths and deserve to remain open.
Critics See Camps as Dangerous
Opponents of boot camps for juvenile offenders argue that those facilities often cause troubled youths more harm than good. Critics have expressed concern that the harsh, military-style discipline of the camps is too tough on juvenile offenders, many of whom are already burdened by serious emotional and family problems. “The very notion of making kids who are already suffering go through more suffering is psychologically backwards,” writes journalist Maia Szalavitz in the Washington Post. “And there is little data to support these institutions’ claims of success.”
Critics also allege that many camp staff members are poorly qualified to deal with struggling juveniles. To make matters worse, critics say, those staff members often resort to physical and psychological cruelty to keep inmates in line. The dynamic between captor and captive can very quickly deteriorate into serious abuse,” warns Jerome Miller, founder of the National Correctional Institute of America.
Miller and like-minded critics maintain that abuse is almost inevitable as long as camp staff members have near-absolute authority over inmates. Miller advocates alternative programs to boot camps that would provide juvenile offenders with greater interaction with nature, helpful adults and “nondelinquent youth.” Such programs would ultimately benefit juvenile offenders more, he argues.
Furthermore, many critics argue that the military model for boot camps is entirely inappropriate for dealing with children. “It is hard to think of a more unsuitable agency than the military for dealing with children. An army is premised on the legitimate use of force (or violence) to pursue the aims of the state,” Mary Raftery writes for the Irish Times. “To confuse this with the idea that the Army is a suitable body to deal with troubled or criminal youth is dangerous nonsense.”
Miller has also criticized the military-style model, noting that the military does not usually recruit people with the kinds of serious mental problems that often afflict juvenile offenders. “The military knows that boot camp does very little for emotionally damaged youth. That’s why the military doesn’t accept people with serious criminal records,” he points out.
Opponents are particularly angered and disturbed by the periodic deaths of camp inmates such as Anderson. “Does there have to be another death before we shut [the camps] down?” asks Florida state Sen. Anthony Hill (D). To Hill and other critics, the dangers posed by camps far outweigh the benefits that the camps produce.
Finally, many critics question whether boot camps ultimately change inmates’ behavior. They cite a number of government reports and statistics which indicate that the camps fail to reform the overwhelming majority of juvenile inmates. According to one study by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, more than 80% of camp inmates resume committing crimes after leaving the camps. Critics maintain that such statistics prove that boot camps do a poor job of eliminating criminal tendencies and putting troubled teens on the right track.
Supporters Say Boot Camps Help Juvenile Offenders
Advocates of boot camps for juvenile offenders maintain that, in many cases, camps help struggling young people to improve their lives and reject crime. When we take these kids in, they are not the kids you see in Sunday School class,” says Florida sheriff and camp director Grady Judd. They’re very mean young criminals, and we have made remarkable strides in changing them into young, productive citizens.” According to Judd, critics who think the boot camp system does not work “spend too much time in the academic world and not the real world.
Judd and other advocates insist that many boot camps do not permit physical abuse of any kind, and are in fact beneficial environments catering to the needs of individual inmates. “We work with the kids where they are and build from there. We give them unconditional support to succeed,” says Fernando Montes-Rodriguez, director of the New Roads Community Program at Camp David Gonzales in California.
Supporters stress that boot camps are more than just detention and exercise centers; they also offer vocational training to help juvenile offenders find jobs after finishing their sentences. For instance, Montes-Rodriguez’s program allows camp inmates to take classes in such varied fields as journalism and computer animation. “Being presented with options makes all the difference” to troubled juveniles, Montes-Rodriguez asserts.
Boot camps also enable juveniles to overcome emotional and substance abuse issues, supporters maintain. New York City resident Elmer Blanco, who was sent to a boot camp at age 15 for fighting in school, credits the camp with helping him cope with rage-related issues. “When I got [to the camp], I was afraid and depressed. It was like hell at first, physically and emotionally,” Blanco admits. But he later grew to appreciate the camp’s focus on discipline, he says, and benefited from its anger management classes. “Now if someone picks on me, I might still be angry, but I’ll let it go,” he says.
Many other former inmates defend the effectiveness of boot camps. Guerby Destina, who spent time at a Juvenile Offender Training Center (JOTC) in Florida, says the experience was “life-changing” in a positive way. “In any other program, you do your time and you’ll get out whether you’re changed or not,” Destina notes. “With the JOTC, you have to change or fake it. By faking being good, it makes you turn good.”
Advocates of boot camps admit that inmate deaths, such as Anderson’s, are tragedies. However, they maintain that boot camps are still valuable, and should not be closed down due to isolated instances of violence. “The boy’s death was a tragedy, but a net was thrown over the boot camps
Wells argues that state governments should give more funding to camp programs, rather than closing them down, so that the state can be more effective at monitoring the progress of juveniles after they leave camp. He also defends the success rate of correctional boot camps, maintaining that it is “no better or worse” than the success rate of other programs that try to reform troubled youths.
In general, proponents argue that boot camps do more good than harm. “I cannot walk away from what I know is a successful program,” Judd says. “My head academically tells me to get out. My heart won’t allow me to get out because I see the miracles that the staff and the volunteers from the community are making with the kids at the boot camp.”
Will Boot Camps Survive?
Because of the wave of abuse scandals, the reputation of correctional boot camps has suffered dramatically. The future of those institutions appears to be hanging in the balance. “The boot camp fad is over,” declares Melissa Sickmund, a researcher affiliated with the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Indeed, many states that formerly embraced boot camps have shut them down, including Arizona, California, Georgia, Maryland, and South Dakota, to name a few.
However, some observers maintain that boot camps are far from extinct. Szalavitz, a boot camp critic, estimates that “several hundred” public and private boot camps were still operating, in the U.S. and elsewhere, as of early 2006. She also estimates that between 10,000 and 20,000 juveniles are enrolled in those facilities each year.
Many law enforcement experts predict that boot camps will evolve rather than disappear entirely. After Anderson’s death in 2006, Florida’s state legislature shifted $10.5 million in funding from boot camps to a new juvenile rehabilitation initiative, dubbed STAR (Sheriff’s Training and Respect). In the STAR program, “the emphasis will be on treatment rather than fear and intimidation,” according to Cynthia Lorenzo, a spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice.
Although ostensibly different from boot camps, the STAR program resembles the camps in some ways. Lorenzo notes that STAR, like boot camps, involves “a strong law enforcement presence with a focus on exercise.” Florida boot camp advocates maintain that STAR is essentially an adjusted version of the camp system, and insist that good boot camps also emphasize treatment over intimidation.
At present, it is unclear whether boot camps for juveniles will continue to evolve, die out or become entirely privatized. For the moment, they are surviving somewhat precariously, and continue to be heatedly debated.
Bibliography
“5m Settlement OK’d in Boy’s Boot Camp Death.” CNN.com, May 3, 2007, www.cnn.com.
Blue, Rebecca. “Boot Camp’s Life Lessons Lost on Some.” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, April 3, 2006, 1.
Edwards, Amy L. “Marching Toward a Better Future: A Kinder, Gentler Boot Camp.” Orlando Sentinel, February 25, 2006, B1.
Fried, Joseph P. A Turnaround Born of Pain, Now Yielding Opportunity.” New York Times, February 9, 2007, B6.
Krueger, Curtis. “Not Boot Camp, But What?” St. Petersburg Times, April 28, 2006, 1B.
